Urban Tree Variation Kāpiti Coast District Plan - Ecological Assessment
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
URBAN TREE VARIATION KĀPITI COAST DISTRICT PLAN - ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT R3525m DRAFT URBAN TREE VARIATION KĀPITI COAST DISTRICT PLAN - ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT Contract Report No. 3525m July 2015 Project Team: Astrid van Meeuwen-Dijkgraaf - Report author, field work Steve Rate - Report author, peer review Bruce MacKay - Field work Kelvin Lloyd -Peer review Prepared for: Kāpiti Coast District Council Private Bag 60601 Paraparaumu 5254 WELLINGTON OFFICE: 22 RAIHA STREET, ELSDON, P.O. BOX 50-539, PORIRUA Ph 04-237-7341; Fax 04-237-7496 HEAD OFFICE: 99 SALA STREET, P.O. BOX 7137, TE NGAE, ROTORUA Ph 07-343-9017; Fax 07-343-9018, email [email protected], www.wildlands.co.nz EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Prior to human occupation, lowland Kāpiti Coast District comprised areas of dunes, dune, riparian and lowland forest, and wetlands. Less than 6% of these indigenous vegetation types remains within the relevant ecological districts and only about 22% of the Tararua foothill forest still exists within the Wellington Region. Much of the lowland areas are categorised as Acutely Threatened and Chronically Threatened Land Environments. The urban areas of Kāpiti Coast District all occur in these lowland areas where indigenous vegetation is significantly reduced from its original extent. Thus indigenous vegetation within the urban areas is threatened at national, regional and district levels. Trees in an urban landscape are important for a variety of reasons; ecological as well as aesthetic, economic, and cultural. The most ecologically valuable trees are found within ecological sites, which are remnants of original forests. These areas reflect the underlying historical vegetation pattern, are reservoirs of genetic variability within a species and provide habitat for flora and fauna. Ecological sites are considered to be significant under S.6 of the RMA and meet Policy 23 of the Regional Policy Statement for the Wellington Region, as well as Policy 3.11 of the Proposed District Plan. In addition to ecological sites there are smaller groups of trees and isolated trees which were also part of the original forest. These trees or groups of trees usually comprise or include large old trees. These large old trees are disproportionally important because they: Reflect the underlying historic pattern; Contribute to the species’ genetic diversity; Some are nationally at risk species; Often form the core in linkages and stepping stone habitat between ecologically important areas which encourages the flow of species; Many occur adjacent, or close, to ecological sites and therefore buffer these sites - as per PDP Policy 3.12(c); Provide habitats for a whole suite of species, from soil micro-organisms and fungi, to invertebrates, lizards, birds, hole nesting species and epiphytic plant species; and Provide large quantities of food for fauna. Due to changes to the Resource Management Act, ‘blanket’ tree protection rules for urban areas, such as those in the Operative District Plan and the 2012 Proposed District Plan, will lapse on 4 September 2015. This report reviews the merits of trees proposed for inclusion in Schedules 3.1 (ecological sites) and 3.2 (key indigenous trees) as the basis for considering whether any trees or groups of trees should be listed in District Plan schedules in the form required by Section 76 of the RMA. The Kāpiti Coast District has a good dataset on the location of important indigenous vegetation and trees. This includes information for all ecological sites listed in the Proposed District Plan Schedule 3.1. These data describe the main canopy components for each ecological site, but not in sufficient detail to identify which species occur on a particular urban allotment. Of 153 ecological sites 13 include trees on urban allotments. In 2015 a further survey was undertaken to identify the tree species within each urban allotment for these 13 ecological sites. © 2013 Contract Report No. 3067d In addition a 2010 survey of urban areas identified and described indigenous and exotic trees that could be of importance within the urban area. The assessment included species, height and circumference, and an assessment of biological importance (the biodiversity score), as well as other parameters. Trees were ranked highly if they were: Locally indigenous; Canopy or emergent species; Had a high national threat classification; Had slow or moderate growth rate; Were large trees; Occurred in proximity to other trees or ecological sites; Were expected to occur at that location. These were found to be appropriate criteria for selecting potential candidate species for potential protection within urban areas of the Kāpiti Coast District with the addition of the following provisos; that the species: Had low levels of natural establishment in urban environment; and Were not commonly planted in gardens. There are two threatened species that are trees. Large-leaved milk tree (Streblus banksii, At Risk-Relict) has been included as a candidate species because it is a nationally threatened tree species. A recent (2014) taxonomic revision of kānuka (Kunzea species) has resulted in the description of ten different species throughout New Zealand. One of these species occurs within Kāpiti Coast District and is considered to be nationally threatened (At Risk- Declining). However, this level of detail is not included in the 2010 Urban Tree Database (since it pre-dates the taxonomic revision) thus it is recommend that a separate study be undertaken to identify which kānuka trees in the 2010 Urban Tree Database are the nationally threatened coastal kānuka species (Kunzea amathicola), and then undertake a further variation of Schedule 3.2 to include identified kānuka. Eight options for urban tree protection have been identified and formed the basis for the options considered in the 11 August 2015 recommending report to the Kāpiti Coast Council (Document SP-15-1666). It is recommended Option 3 for ecological sites is adopted and that Schedule 3.1 of the Proposed District Plan be amended to include, for each allotment that contains part of an ecological site, a list of tree species over 4m in height. Unless Option 3 is implemented trees on urban allotments within ecological sites in the PDP will not be assured of regulatory protection. It is also recommend that Option 7 (trees in the 2010 Urban Tree Database with a biodiversity score of at least 8) is the most practical and effective option to identify urban trees that warrant protection, or for a less conservative outcome, Option 6 (trees in the 2010 Urban Tree Database with a biodiversity score of 10 or a circumference of at least 180 cm). These options are supported for the following reasons: © 2013 Contract Report No. 3067d Option 7 protects important trees that have biodiversity scores of 8 or greater but do not occur in ecological sites. This approach is supported because it captures a reasonable number of individuals of the slow growing and a greater number of specimens of rare indigenous tree species than other options considered. Many of these trees occur in groups or in proximity to ecological sites, which will assist with maintaining ecological processes and biodiversity in urban areas and helps to fulfil Proposed District Plan policy 3.12(c) with regards to buffering vegetation. Option 6 proposes to protect the highest value trees (score of 10, trunk circumference >180 cm), that do not occur in ecological sites. However, this option will, for some species include only a few individuals (less than 10 trees for 10 of the candidate species, and none for four others). A non-regulatory approach (Options 1 and 2) is not likely to effectively protect important indigenous trees, and planting of indigenous trees cannot easily replace the values of large old indigenous trees that are lost. Planted trees do not need to be protected (Option 4), because they have lower ecological value. Protecting all of the trees in the current Schedule 3.2 (Option 5) is overly onerous because it includes many fast-growing and ‘weedy’ indigenous species that do not warrant protection. Option 8 would undertake a separate evaluation of trees under Option 6 and protect qualifying evaluated trees in the notable tree schedule, but suffers from the same drawbacks as Option 6. It is therefore recommended that Option 3 (ecological sites) and Option 7 (urban trees) are adopted. It is recommended that the more pragmatic tree trimming and modification rules are adopted that includes reference to the Arboriculture Association NZ best practice guideline for trimming of important trees listed in potential Proposed District Plan Schedules 3.1 and 3.2. This is a suitable and pragmatic approach to managing significant and important trees in the urban landscape, and will assist with maintenance of biodiversity in the urban environment. On 11 August 2015 the Council voted to accept preparation of a Variation to the Proposed District Plan relating to trees on urban allotments that occur within ecological areas (Option 3), and includes most of the higher biodiversity - all candidate trees with biodiversity scores of 9 and 10. This is an intermediate position between proposed Option 6 and 7. Council also voted to accept the recommendations regarding modification and trimming of trees in urban areas. © 2013 Contract Report No. 3067d DRAFT CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 1. INTRODUCTION 1 2. ECOLOGICAL CONTEXT 2 2.1 Ecological districts 2 2.2 Ecological domains 4 2.3 Classification of New Zealand’s Terrestrial Ecosystems 4 2.4 Threatened environment classification 5 3. VALUES OF INDIGENOUS TREES IN AN URBAN ENVIRONMENT 6 3.1 Biodiversity 6 3.2 Aesthetic and economic 10 3.3 Health and environmental benefits 10 3.4 Heritage and historic values 10 4. SIGNIFICANCE OF URBAN TREES IN KĀPITI 11 4.1 Significance of ecological sites 12 4.2 Significance of large indigenous trees 12 4.3 Significance of other indigenous trees and non-indigenous trees 13 5.